How historical amnesia defines Ukraine crisis
WHILE there is no doubt that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under International Law, just like the US invasion of Grenada (1983) and Panama(1989) were in violation of the UN Charter, it is important to remember that the US and its NATO allies gave rise to circumstances which served as a pretext for President Putin to invade Ukraine.
Given the significance of Ukraine as a vital National Security Interest, Russia sees further NATO expansion as a red line, and yet the concerns expressed by Russian leaders over the years fell on deaf ears.
The conventional response from the US and its NATO allies has always been that Ukraine has the right to choose and that Russia should refrain from “interfering in internal matters of other sovereign nations”.
Claiming that Ukraine should have the right to join NATO is like saying Canada or Mexico have the right to enter into a collective Security alliance with Russia or China.
As a matter of fact, it is crucial to remember that the United States has maintained hegemony over the Western hemisphere, which includes both North and South America, for decades, a large part of which is informed by the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine was adopted in 1823 by the then US President James Monroe, which opposed the European colonial interference in the Western Hemisphere.
Although the Monroe doctrine was signed almost 200 years ago, it continues to serve as the guiding principle for US foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere.
The most vigorous implementation of the Monroe Doctrine was witnessed during the cold war, which the United States deemed necessary in order to contain the Soviet “expansion”.
In defending Ukraine’s right to become a member, proponents of NATO expansion argue that the aim of the alliance is to ensure security for vulnerable countries facing constant bullying from powerful states like Russia, which is a weak argument in it of itself considering the United States own historical record.
For example, during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the US imposed a full embargo on Cuba and almost invaded the country for hosting Soviet Missiles, even though one could have argued that Cuba had the right to use those missiles as a deterrent against US aggression, which was on full display during the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Moreover, the United States, in efforts to prevent Soviet influence, overthrew a number of socialist governments across Latin America and even supported dead squads in El Salvador, a policy which was widely condemned.
In fact in 1986 the International Court of Justice ruled in Nicaragua vs United States that the US support for Contras was in violation of Customary International Law.
However, the US dismissed the ruling of the International Court of Justice and continued with its policy of funding the right-wing rebels in Nicaragua against Sandanistas socialist government.
The United States justified its disregard for international norms as necessary in order to safeguard “national interests”, and so Russia’s willingness to play the same card should not come as a surprise.
Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that Ukraine is not a vital National Security Interest for the US.
In fact, George Kennan, who was the chief architect of the US containment policy of Soviet expansion echoed similar views in a 1997 op-ed for New York Times where he sounded the alarm bells and warned that NATO expansion towards Russia “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
—The writer is a contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
